#: 16299 S3/Languages
    25-Aug-92  21:54:05
Sb: #16297-Your July article
Fm: Bob van der Poel 76510,2203
To: Mark Griffith 76070,41 (X)

I probably shouldn't even bother to reply to your message. After all, you've
already decided that I'm wrong and you're right. On the other hand, I guess I'm
in pretty good company now--not everyone has the privilege of getting flamed by
you. Frankly, Mark, you really should read your messages over before posting
them and attempt to be a bit more charitable in your comments to others.
Weren't you the one offering to send folks a Bible awhile ago?

Also, I find it strange that you take exception to Mike's comments about it
"being correct in Unix" not applying when it comes to OSK. Heck, every time
someone wants to do something different, you get on your soapbox and wail about
the "unix standards" already in place and how we should follow them. Oh well.

If you care to check an ANSI C reference, you'll find that malloc(), etc are to
be defined in  as returning pointers of type VOID. Since OSK doesn't
use  I took your advice and used the unix standard of having a
 header. It'd be fine to declare malloc(), etc as returning a ptr to
char, but then you have to do an explicit cast to use it as anything else. Just
checked the MW manual, and it does list char *malloc(). So, maybe you're right
and I'm wrong. Maybe I'm a lousy teacher. At least I teach and share what I
learn.

If it's that important to you, why don't _you_ write an article and explain
your thinking. And while you're at it, tell the folks where declarations for
malloc(), etc belong (maybe check the unix standard?) and the best declaration.
But do keep in mind the new ANSI standards, compilers like GNU, portability,
what works best, and what other professionals are using. Should make for
interesting reading--I look forward to it.